Dear Mr. Bush,
The title of this post says it all. Your presidency has been an absolute disaster for just about everybody concerned, and I can't wait until your last moment in office. No, I didn't vote for you in either 2000 or 2004, neither did I vote for your Democratic opponents.
As a Republican, you belied everything that the GOP stood for. If I hadn't decided to leave your party in 1996, I would definitely have hit the road during the early portion of your first term. The "Compassionate Conservative" turned into the "Big Government Socialist Warmonger," ruining just about everything you and your neocon cohorts could get your mitts on.
The assault on civil liberties following 9/11 -- and what DID you know and when DID you know it beforehand? -- by the USA PATRIOT Act and other legislation is reminiscent of the Clinton reaction to the 1995 Murrah Building incident in Oklahoma City. The bottom line is that we've lost a hell of a lot of our civil liberties in the last two administrations.
"No Child Left Behind" was based on a fraudulent program in Texas and has been shown as the mistake it was in the years since its passage. Discipline problems run amok, schools can't take the steps they need to correct these problems for fear of losing federal funds. Teachers don't like it, school systems have to hire extra staff and spend extra money to administer it. And to think that developmentally disabled children who can't even take care of themselves with basic life skills are going to be able to pass Algebra II by a certain age just flies in the face of reality. It needs to be either radically reworked or, better yet, scrapped.
An attack on Afghanistan *might* possibly have been justified on the basis of the Taliban's aid and comfort for al-Qaeda. However, the war in Iraq, which has cost thousands of American lives and countless Iraqis, and spent untold bagazillions of dollars, was absolutely over the top and unjustified. Now, we're in a morass where someone else is going to have to clean up *your* mess.
On the basis of "UN Resolutions" you stubbornly led a coalition into Iraq. I'm sorry, but when are US troops supposed to be used to enforce UN Resolutions? Especially when the UN has NOT requested that they be used?
The US Constitution (remember that old thing?), which you swore "to preserve, protect, and defend" does NOT call for this nation to be the world's policeman. Nor are we to arrogantly tell others how they must live or mandate what system of government we think is best for them. That's what's gotten us into this situation in the first place!
You've consistently grown the government you talked about paring back. New departments, new fiefdoms, new titles, new powers assumed, new regulations.
Your economic policies haven't been much better. Although I did agree with the tax cuts to help stimulate the economy, I did not think your cozy relationships with all the Wall Street crowd was terribly helpful. There were many warning signs that the subprime market was going to bite us in the rear, but your administration ignored them.
Then, when it all went south, Hank Paulson's "solution" was the big bailout in September, making the Sec Treas the "Bailout Czar," with the sole and ultimate authority to decide who got what funds. (And those are his to give, WHY? )
Sure, there's plenty of paper stock at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Roll 'em out, don't worry that our dollar may well free-fall.
Last time I checked, a free market didn't guarantee that if you made bad decisions, the government would bail you out. If you made bad decisions, it was your problem to figure out. We haven't had a free market in decades, though.
But I nearly went through the roof when the bailouts occurred. Taking over AIG made us, for the first time, a socialist nation. The government now owns a certain percentage of equity in exchange for funds in a company that immediately sponsored a lavish vacation for its inept executives at a posh spa. Great.
And it didn't stop there! Now the government has equity in a number of banks and other companies that are "too big to fail."
I've suggested that we scrap the "Star Spangled Banner" for "The Internationale." I'm only half kidding.
No, sir, I'm not going to miss you and the rest of your gang. That all this damage could have come in just eight years is astounding. I'll give three cheers that "The Decider" has finally left the building and we'll be through with him. It will be up to the new administration (which, I'll also say in full disclosure I did not vote for) to try to rebuild our foreign relations, our economy, our morale.
I'm looking forward to the "change." It certainly can't be much worse...
Friday, January 9, 2009
Unintended Consequences of MD Slots?
Back in November 2008, you almost would've forgotten that there was a presidential election going on in this state. Why? After all, at 8:00:01, you *knew* Obama had 10 electoral votes.
Megabucks (and not the multi-state lottery game) were being spent by both sides trying to convince us to either approve or shoot down a Constitutional amendment to permit Video Lottery Terminals (slots) gaming in our dear state.
It's funny how in 2003, when Bob Ehrlich (R) was governor, Mike Busch (D) couldn't see his way to permitting slots in the state. It was a horrible idea, and we didn't need them, and all sorts of evil would befall the state if we were to allow them. And, for 4 years, we didn't get slots.
Fast forward to 2007, now Martin O'Malley (D) is governor, and the economy is starting to go to hell in a handbasket. O'Malley called a Special Session and Speaker Busch jumped right in line saying that, hey, the economy was bad, and slots would now be good.
Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), a slots opponent all along, to his credit, said that he still thought it was a bad idea. I'm not going to rehash all the arguments, the election is over. (Whew!)
However, I gotta tell you, it's not the lottery terminals I had a problem with. It's the METHOD of bringing them to Maryland that stunk. Those who opposed the amendment will be able to point out next year that the slots, which will just possibly be coming online, are not going to live up to the promises made, and may organize to oust the rascals that voted to put the question to the voters. Can I help?
You see, if the Assembly had grown a pair, they could have simply passed a bill authorizing slots and the parlors could be well under construction or even open right now. There really was no need to amend the Constitution to do it. The bill could not have been sent to referendum because, under the Constitution, it is a "revenue bill," and, therefore, not referrable.
I did mention unintended consequences, right? Back in 2002, I was spending an evening at the Charles Town Races and Slots in West Virginia. They had just begun construction on a new garage and expanded gaming floor, and I had the chance to speak to a security guard. He told me that they hoped that MD would pass slots in 2003. Why? Because the WV General Assembly would be ready to consider adding table games in their state. Now that slots are also in Pennsylvania, how soon do you think they can pass it?
Cool! No more 2-1/2 hour drive to Atlantic City to have to deal with their attitude. No more 5 hour flights to Vegas, where western hospitality was a lot of fun, but the jet lag sucks. We may soon go to WV and get it all there!
Full Disclosure: I have gambled in slot parlors in PA, DE, WV, and other states, and will likely also do so in MD. I have no problems if an adult wants to spend some of his entertainment money playing slots. But, in the end, I also voted "AGAINST" the amendment.
Megabucks (and not the multi-state lottery game) were being spent by both sides trying to convince us to either approve or shoot down a Constitutional amendment to permit Video Lottery Terminals (slots) gaming in our dear state.
It's funny how in 2003, when Bob Ehrlich (R) was governor, Mike Busch (D) couldn't see his way to permitting slots in the state. It was a horrible idea, and we didn't need them, and all sorts of evil would befall the state if we were to allow them. And, for 4 years, we didn't get slots.
Fast forward to 2007, now Martin O'Malley (D) is governor, and the economy is starting to go to hell in a handbasket. O'Malley called a Special Session and Speaker Busch jumped right in line saying that, hey, the economy was bad, and slots would now be good.
Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), a slots opponent all along, to his credit, said that he still thought it was a bad idea. I'm not going to rehash all the arguments, the election is over. (Whew!)
However, I gotta tell you, it's not the lottery terminals I had a problem with. It's the METHOD of bringing them to Maryland that stunk. Those who opposed the amendment will be able to point out next year that the slots, which will just possibly be coming online, are not going to live up to the promises made, and may organize to oust the rascals that voted to put the question to the voters. Can I help?
You see, if the Assembly had grown a pair, they could have simply passed a bill authorizing slots and the parlors could be well under construction or even open right now. There really was no need to amend the Constitution to do it. The bill could not have been sent to referendum because, under the Constitution, it is a "revenue bill," and, therefore, not referrable.
I did mention unintended consequences, right? Back in 2002, I was spending an evening at the Charles Town Races and Slots in West Virginia. They had just begun construction on a new garage and expanded gaming floor, and I had the chance to speak to a security guard. He told me that they hoped that MD would pass slots in 2003. Why? Because the WV General Assembly would be ready to consider adding table games in their state. Now that slots are also in Pennsylvania, how soon do you think they can pass it?
Cool! No more 2-1/2 hour drive to Atlantic City to have to deal with their attitude. No more 5 hour flights to Vegas, where western hospitality was a lot of fun, but the jet lag sucks. We may soon go to WV and get it all there!
Full Disclosure: I have gambled in slot parlors in PA, DE, WV, and other states, and will likely also do so in MD. I have no problems if an adult wants to spend some of his entertainment money playing slots. But, in the end, I also voted "AGAINST" the amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)